Church demolitions have generated much debate on the proper uses for historic structures. A city official suggests that churches first address the essential needs of their members and communities before considering ways to augment insurance proceeds through savings, capital campaigns, outside contributions, or responsible borrowing. The best guide to finding Main Street Demolition Dripping Springs.
Terry Ammons from Petersburg’s Studio Ammons disagrees and suggests rehabilitating an existing church would be less expensive than building an entirely new structure.
Preparatory Work
Population migrations, shifting social patterns, and declining church attendance (especially in the Global North) often render church buildings redundant and require new uses for them to remain viable. If no viable replacement can be found, a church may be sold off for business or residential purposes; otherwise, it will likely be demolished to make way for something better.
Deconsecration rituals may be performed before closing a church. These may include procession with host to building, removal of sacramental objects such as crosses and plaques from altar, walls, ambo, and baptismal font, and remembering of deceased worshipers at final blessing near baptismal font—these symbolic acts represent the end of liturgical use as well as relinquishment of ownership and control over space.
Church demolition can be a contentious issue. For instance, residents were upset when St Mary’s in Wythall was destroyed to become offices for an electrical company in England; Partners for Sacred Places published a report in 2004 that revealed that development pressure is often responsible for demolitions in Philadelphia.
The Sanjiang Church’s tale in China illustrates just how complex matters can become when religion and law collide. If local officials and church representatives had strictly followed the law and better communicate with one another about any misunderstandings that arose, things might have turned out differently.
Permits
Permit applications are essential to saving church buildings. Before any demolition takes place, a permit must be obtained from the city Department of Buildings (DOB), but church members who want to fight their demolition may take longer.
As reported by The Brooklyn Paper, church members trying to save Green Church in Bay Ridge were required to remove furnishings and exhume remains of members interred in its crypt before they could obtain a demolition permit from the Department of Building (DOB). Applications are typically reviewed within two business days by DOB; development inspections can then be scheduled as soon as this occurs.
Permits have also been issued for the demolition of a Harlem church that could be rebuilt with apartment units. This church was sold due to a lack of funds available from its previous diocese to a real estate developer, who plans to develop it into a six-story complex featuring space for worship congregations, retail, and office use.
Winooski residents have taken similar steps in petitioning the city to overturn a demolition permit issued for St. Stephen Church on Barlow Street. The church closed in 2020 after a shortage of priests forced it to merge with nearby St. Francis Xavier Church. A Vermont Marble Museum group says the church stands as an outstanding example, and many want it saved from destruction.
Legal Issues
Before church demolition can begin, several legal matters must be addressed. For example, the local government must ensure that the property being sold will benefit both them and the wider community, be completed within an acceptable amount of time, and be used as intended. Lastly, sellers must make sure their properties continue to be utilized according to what they were originally purchased for.
People attempting to save the church have been making considerable efforts to fight the city’s decision to demolish it, although no clear path forward has yet been seen.
At stake in this case is its legality, specifically whether the sale was legal. The church is fighting back against plans to demolish its building, using religious liberty provisions in the First Amendment as its defense.
Church officials argue that the sale of their property constitutes “inverse condemnation.” This means that Village authorities have taken possession of it without going through a formal eminent domain process; according to Supreme Court precedent, such actions violate First Amendment protection. If church leaders can show that the Village’s actions were unreasonable, they could win their case and receive the funds necessary to save their building.
Finalizing the Deal
Before any demolition can begin, many details must be clarified. Neighbors fear that dust from demolition could reach their homes. Furthermore, asbestos-laden sites must also be considered and dealt with accordingly; to this end, the church has submitted a plan that addresses this and other potential concerns.
Church leaders must decide how best to deal with the building’s declining condition. Congregants maintain that the church cannot afford to maintain an aging concrete structure vulnerable to cracking, leakage, and wear and tear. An estimate from a structural engineer indicates that repairing it would be more costly than selling it for development.
Preservationists have come out against the church’s decision, with support from high-profile supporters like actor Mark Ruffalo voicing opposition to it. However, the church has an incentive to carry through with its plans, and its finances allow it to do so.
Partners for Sacred Places has reported that 2012 79 percent of church and synagogue demolitions due to pressure from developers have taken place since 2012. This trend can often be found in historically working-class or immigrant neighborhoods of cities like New York. When congregations can no longer afford the upkeep costs for a historic church or synagogue, its buildings often disappear – an ultimate sign that ritual and religion have disappeared forever – though sometimes not without some final ceremony being conducted beforehand.
